User talk:2601:647:4800:9860:F8AD:4B97:B465:5744

The material on Irving contains weasel words and unsupported statements. For example, "Ironically, Irving's research into Goebbel's diaries provided some of the best evidence for the Holocaust." is better written, "Irving's research into Goebbel's diaries provided some of the best evidence for the Holocaust.", thus removing the imputation that Irving was attempting to refute this material, when in fact he was presenting it. "Holocaust deniers [who?] claim the protocol is a fabrication [where?]. " On a related note, "“the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work." is being used here as proof that the speaker was aware of a desire to murder every last Jewish person (genocide). Taking this to be an accurate translation, the speaker appears to be saying that the remaining Jews are in an unfortunate state, such that only 40% are able to work, the remaining people - those who cannot work - are so unhealthy that they must be killed. A person who was aware of an order for genocide would have simply said "all must be killed". I realize the impetus to demonize anyone who disagrees with a certain portrayal of events, that anyone who attempts to discuss even the most minor detail is treated as an evil human being, but Wikipedia generally objects to weasel words and unsourced statements. This article is clearly biased in favor of destroying the reputation of one person - and while I may or may not have sympathy for this goal, I do not believe that Wikipedia should be used in this way. Far better to provide links to what Irving actually said (avoiding cherrypicking if possible) and to also present what he says in his own defense, so that the reader can examine all the material for herself. The title of this section is "David Irving Controversy", but this is presented not as a controversy, but as a one-sided decided matter.

Why not just write "Irving is a liar" and leave it at that?

in summary, there is an agenda in operation here and the text does not meet Wikipedia's standards for objective writing.